Welcome beLIEve101...<br /><br />You know what, I really think the sentencing will be INTERESTING, will the defense appeal or will they not, who knows.<br /><br />By the way does anyone know if they can only appeal before sentencing or can they appeal after the sentencing?<br /><br />I have a feeling they won't appeal, but if they do and get granted a retrial and we have to go through it again, well, won't that be fun (no sarcasm).
May be this is off topic now.....<br /><br />[size=24pt][size=18pt]TS... is it time for level 7 yet[/size]?? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:<br /><br />M[size=18pt]ay be 11.11.11 might be a suitable date.....<br /><br />I am not good at numerology, but this is what I thought about<br />[/size][/size]<br /><br /><br /><br />Blessings
<br />May be this is off topic now.....<br /><br />[size=24pt][size=18pt]TS... is it time for level 7 yet[/size]?? :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:<br /><br />M[size=18pt]ay be 11.11.11 might be a suitable date.....<br /><br />I am not good at numerology, but this is what I thought about<br />[/size][/size]<br /><br /><br />Blessings<br />
also slightly off topic quote from a statement from MJ estate<br /><br />A Message from John Branca and John McClain, Co-Executors of The Estate of Michael Jackson<br /><br />The Estate of Michael Jackson and Michael himself has always believed the jury system works and despite the tragedy that brought about this trial we are in agreement with the jury's verdict. In this case Justice has been served. Michael is missed on a daily basis but his genius and his music will be with us forever. He is "the greatest entertainer that has ever lived" <br /><br />Shouldnt it be he WAS and HAD .... that present tence again WTF??<br /><br /><br />opsie forgot the link http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/news/message-john-branca-and-john-mcclain-co-executors-estate-michael-jackson bangbang
<br />Remember Murray was not charged with murder. He did not have to push the fatal dose himself to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. There were huge unsatisfactorily unanswered questions in the trial re how the 'fatal dose' was administered and who by, but that doesn't alter the fact that NOTHING bad should have happened to MJ on Murray's watch. He failed in his duty of care by his actions and inactions. Therefore I think the jury made the right decision.<br /><br />
<br /><br />I don't agree with this. To me Murray is guilty for Michael's death if he injected the fatal dose. That wasn't proved and maybe it is even impossible to prove.<br />It's one thing to fail to watch the patient and totally another thing to inject a fatal dose of drug. Let's say Murray went to the bathroom and someone else came and gave the fatal dose. Why would Murray be guilty of manslaughter in this case?!?!?!?<br />
<br /><br />Because as Curls said, he did not have to push the fatal dose himself to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. <br />
<br /><br />Thanks MissG for stepping in in my absence! People are confusing 'murder' with 'involuntary manslaughter' - legally there are differences which means Murray was guilty of involuntary manslaughter but not of murder.<br /><br />If you want to go down the 'we don't know who killed him' route, which I think Gina, you said in a later post, well, yes, I agree they did not prove who killed MJ - and we know why! He isn't dead! Now if they'd really followed their investigations further maybe they would have reached that conclusion too - and maybe that's being saved for a further trial. Who Knows?!<br /><br />Gina, as long as part of you still thinks MJ is dead, you're going to continue to have a hard time with all this. Doesn't the fact that the trial was based on assumptions, that no-one actually proved how the propofol levels at the supposed autopsy didn't match with what Murray said he administered, that all the defense had was a weak argument of MJ giving it to himself .... don't these things help you at all?
Actually this "guilty" verdict doesn't have too much sense, it must be a hoax therefore :shock:.<br />So if it doesn't make sense, something must be very wrong about it.<br /><br />Level 7 really I can not guess anything. Not the date, not the subject.<br />I'm trying in vain to read TS' mind lolol/...he's blocking the "nosy" ones afraid/.<br /><br />hmmmmmmmm /cook/<br /><br /><br /><br />
Hi Curls<br /><br />Good or bad, I'm trying to think with what's left of my poor brain.<br />If I am wrong so be it. <br />Compared to michaeljackson.com this forum is a blessing, I mean I can say whatever stupid thing crosses my mind.<br /><br />
<br />Ironically, TS and Front almost always log in and post something on the same day. I wonder if that is a coincidence or those are the same person with different user name.<br />
<br /><br />I think that you are onto something... suspicious//<br />
<br /><br />Finally... lolol/ <br />
<br /><br />Actually I have been trying not to accept the fact because it is NOT a good thing finally. It is a deception and manipulation to members. Not necessary to be TS on the TIAI and Front on the 'Back' thread to play game of "2 different insiders". <br />
<br /><br />It doesn't necessarily mean that Front and TS are the same PERSON but it's POSSIBLE they are on the same TEAM. Scorpionchick, if they were manipulating people, Souza would kick their butts and git rid of them, so I don't think we have to worry about that. Plus, both Front's and TS's authenticity has prevailed.
On TMZ livestream they talked after the press conference and Harvey Levin said something that may be relevant, I have no idea actually LOL maybe. He noticed how the DA Steve Cooley and the two persons with him were in front of the camera all the time while David Walgren was put aside and didn't talk very long. He said it was "shocking" and "unbelievable". I don't know how it happens generally but they really made a big point about that.<br /><br /><br />
Since the verdict I have become increasingly frustrated. We, have hid in our corner, and for the most part only told each other what we KNOW. We watched an innocent man get convicted of a crime he did not commit and done nothing. I don't know if it was a real trial or a kangaroo court. It sure as hell was presented to us as real wasn't it? I have enjoyed the hoax as much as anyone and will continue to do so but how long are we going to remain silent about what we know? We are already considered nuts but some and are mostly dismissed by others so what do we have to lose by demanding truth as one collective voice? Maybe, just maybe Michael wants us to do it. Maybe he told us once in a song...."I can't do it by myself." -Cry <br />Our numbers are massive. We are everywhere. Every corner of the earth has a believer. If we are to truly be Michael's Army of Love than we need to start acting like it by DEMANDING TRUTH. We are the soldiers in TII's TDRCAU.<br />I have tons more to say on the subject but will leavewith this for now. LOVE to all of you!!!! <br /><br /> /bravo/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
@Im_convincedmjalive Excellent post. However, I am not sure if they depended on mind manipulation to make them say guilty due to an emotional response. That is a great argument and worth exploring but the only thing that gives me pause is the timing of everything. That would be really risky to solely trust in the jury's response and expect them to be completed by 11/7 and be ready to read the verdict by 1:15 or 1:17pm unless MJ had back up plans if they picked other days but I just don't think the timing was done by accident. And saying this makes me wonder if the jury was in on it to a degree or were outside influences forcing them to make a decision quickly. <br /><br />And this was probably posted before but just wanted to reiterate. Here is the definition of involuntary manslaughter:<br /><br />
involuntary manslaughter<br /><br />The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally.<br /><br />Most unintentional killings are not murder but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of the element of intent is the key distinguishing factor between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.<br /><br />Many states do not define involuntary manslaughter, or define it vaguely in common-law terms. Some jurisdictions describe the amount of Negligence necessary to constitute manslaughter with terms such as criminal negligence, gross negligence, and culpable negligence. The only certainty that can be attached to these terms is that they require more than the ordinary negligence standard in a civil case. With this approach the state does not have to prove that the defendant was aware of the risk.<br /><br />Other jurisdictions apply more subjective tests, such as "reckless" or "wanton," to describe the amount of negligence needed to constitute involuntary manslaughter. In this approach the defendant must have personally appreciated a risk and then chosen to take it anyway.<br /><br />There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.<br /><br />An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.<br /><br />In many jurisdictions death that results from the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner is punishable as a separate offense. Usually it is considered a less severe offense than involuntary manslaughter. These jurisdictions usually call the offense reckless homicide, negligent homicide, or vehicular homicide. One reason for this lesser offense is the reluctance of juries to convict automobile drivers of manslaughter.<br /><br />Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.<br /><br />In other states this distinction is not made. If death results from an unlawful act, the person who committed the act may be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter even if the act was malum prohibitum. Courts will uphold unlawful act manslaughter where the statute was intended to prevent injury to another person.<br /><br />Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/involuntary+manslaughter
<br /><br />Could Dr. Murray be considered guilty without reasonable doubt? I am not too sure. I am going to be neutral on this one until I think further on this. <br />
Tell you this...there is MORE going on right now than there has been since the memorial, concerning Michael. <br />It's everyplace. Non-stop on my facebook. All over twitter. Everyone seems to have known Michael once again and is posting.<br />Arnie is cluing like crazy.<br />Murray and the damn docu.<br />TMZ. <br />It's finally all over the NEWS and press.<br />Tv is showing TII and HLN is still maxing out on anything Michael.<br />I who LOVE Michael as I love life, is sick of it all.<br />Honestly, I could post tweets and comments and articles on here 24 hours a day and not have enough time for them all.<br />So, I'm posting NONE.<br />I know you'll all find them for me, figure everything it all out and I'll read it then, cuz...it's too much.<br />It all reminds me of back in about 1984 when Michael said something about his timeline for releasing albums because he didn't want <br />people to get overwhelmed by the info out about him. NOT exact words, and there is a term for what he spoke about, but, anyhow, that's how I feel now. The world is going to get sick of all this and it won't matter.<br />Which, may be the plan. <br />Then, bam!
<br />“Look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religions destroy spirituality.” ~ Michael Ellner<br /><br />This is quite an amazing quote and I really think that this epitomizes the general reason for the hoax. As for the technicalities, I’d rather not make any assumptions because I believe that there is more to this than we can ever imagine and all of us have found truth in our own way and we have all brought something of value to the table. But I will say one thing.<br /><br />If you really think about it, (and trust me, you probably don’t have to lol) the moral degradation of humanity can be attributed to everything being ‘backwards.’<br /><br />This ‘backwards’ sequence that the world is living by is contrived and has been manufactured by TPTB.<br />As we all know, this is all part of the plan that TPTB have in order to plunge the world into chaos and disorder. They know that fear (false prophet doomsday BS) and hate (caused by religious, racial and homophobic discord) are the perfect catalysts for this to happen according to their plans. The ONLY way that we can win this war is with unconditional LOVE. LOVE for our brothers and sisters of humanity regardless of who they are and how they live their lives. It’s our job is to LOVE one another and it’s God’s job to judge. <br /><br /> I would like to quote one of Michael’s songs titled ‘Jam’ to reiterate this.<br /><br />“What has come of all the people<br />Have we lost love of what it’s about<br /><br />I have to find my peace cuz no one seems to let me be<br />False prophets cry of doom what are the possibilities…<br /><br />…The world keeps changing rearranging minds and thoughts<br />Predictions fly of doom…<br /><br />…She pray to God to Buddha then she sings a Talmud song<br />Confusions contradict the self do we know right from wrong.”<br /><br />Thank you Shining Light for posting the lyrics!:<br /><br />Now here’s one of my favorite lyrics from ‘Keep the Faith’<br /><br />“Any road that you take will get you there<br />If you only try”<br /><br />Though some may differ, there is no one right way. No one has the complete and ultimate truth. That’s why we have a free will. We must search for our own truth and ‘seek our own salvation.’ Man-made religion cannot do this for us. It dampens our spirituality and it only serves to distance us from each other and most importantly, from God, The Creator. The same principle applies to the hoax investigation. Not one of us has all of the answers. If we did, I don't think we would feel the need to be here.<br /><br />As for the verdict, I was not too surprised. This is just the beginning. My faith is strong and I am even more confident that Michael is alive. This does not shake my faith at all. But I must say that I was VERY worried about what would have happened outside the courthouse if he had been found ‘not guilty’. My heart was racing while I watched the verdict reading live on TV. (LOL...It was actually my B-Day on 7-11. heh)<br /><br />I must admit and agree that I found it sad that the fans cheered with such joy after hearing the verdict. If I was an uninformed non-believer, like I’m sure that most of them were, I would not be happy no matter what the verdict was. (Thinking in the uninformed ‘non-hoax’ mindset,) - It would not bring Michael back and a man who has loved ones as well as children was sent to prison. I think it would be quite a sad scenario either way if one were to look at this with the eyes of an uninformed non-believer. But perhaps it’s just me thinking this way. <br /><br />But of course I know that this is all a part of the plan and I think we are still in for quite an adventure! <br /><br />BTW, the posts that you all have been making are amazing! I have been brought to tears! <br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />Another great post. I especially LOVE that quote. Have to spread that one around a bit. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. And you guys are posting some really thought provoking posts lately especially in this thread. I'm enjoying every bit of it. :hugs:
But Michael for the most of the people that was the TRUTH. That Murray killed MJ.<br />We can demand more investigation but who's going to listen to us? The official truth is out there and largely accepted.
I think the guilty verdict makes sense considering the majority of the world still thinks Michael is dead. This verdict satisfies the non-believers, gives them a bit of the "justice" they've been wanting. It's temporary but it's enough to convince them that they were "right". I think we've established that the guilty verdict is part of the hoax script and is necessary to move to the next level. Michael's return will shock/amaze/humble the world and make people question other "truths" they've been led to believe.<br /><br />I highly doubt that Murray is sitting in a jail cell right now. If Michael is to BAM before Jan 1 2013 then we've already waited longer for his return than the time left remaining. Ready when you are Michael!
I posted a pdf file of the 'jury instructions' a few pages back but I'm not sure if people actually read them. Based on those instructions, I honestly cannot see how this jury could've found Murray 'not guilty' of involuntary manslaughter. I may be missing something entirely or maybe misinterpreting the instructions (specifically the definition(s) under the 'Charged Crime' section)....but based on THOSE instructions/definitions, IMO the jury came up with the 'right' verdict (ANY jury that would've followed THOSE instructions in this case, would've and should've found any DOCTOR 'guilty' of involuntary manslaughter...regardless of age, sex, nationality, etc).<br /><br />Some are getting 'caught up' on the 'fatal dose' issue...but again, the instructions are VERY clear in that even IF MJ administered the 'fatal dose' himself, or some other person came in and injected MJ with it, Murray CAN still be guilty IF he should have been able to 'foresee' the possibility of this happening. Based on Murray's own statement(s), he said he knew Mike 'liked to push it', he also knew there were others in the house, and he also knew that the room was littered with drugs. So the 'fatal dose' factor is a non-issue with a charge of involuntary manslaughter....IF he was being charged with murder, then the 'reasonable doubt' as to who administered the fatal dose would've and should've come into play....but he was not charged with that crime. Again, the instructions are VERY clear on this issue.<br /><br />Like others, I tend to think that the DA is in on it (even if just Walgren) based on the 'odd' things that were said and done in court. But this 'script' was SO rock-solid for a guilty verdict (with the added bonus of a seemingly incompetant defense team)...that it probably wouldn't even have been necessary to have the DA in on it in order to ensure a guilty verdict. Based on what was presented in court (i.e. the 17 deviations from the standard of care, which were in many instances extreme deviations) the ONLY way IMO that this jury could've found Murray 'not guilty' is if they either didn't understand the instructions OR they intentionally went against them.<br /><br />Which takes us to the part in the instructions where the judge makes it VERY clear to the jury what they are 'allowed' to consider in their deliberations and what they're not...and the ONLY things they are to consider is ONLY what has been presented in court. It's 'easy' for us to notice discrepancies, inconsistencies, and/or outright 'fake' evidence...but we SEE everything through 'hoax-eyes'. It's hard to unring a bell once it's been rung...we have been awakened to all of the BS. Given the fact that 99% of the world thinks Mike is dead...odds are that all, or at least most, of the jury did too. But even IF they noticed that something wasn't quite right (and again, this would be difficult or 99% of the world wouldn't think Mike is dead)...but even IF they decided, for example, that the autopsy photo didn't look 'quite right' or any other 'evidence' presented in court for that matter....under THE LAW they are NOT allowed to look further into it on their own. The instructions, again, are VERY clear on this and we've discussed this very fact in this thread. The jury would've had to intentionally violate the instructions (the law) in order to research the 'oddities'....and IF they came back with a not guilty verdict based on their OWN research, the case is an automatic mistrial. It's a catch-22...in order to find the truth, they would've had to break the law....in breaking the law, the 'system' deems their 'truth' irrelevant.<br /><br />And THAT, in itself, should shed light on one of the major flaws in the judicial system where juries are involved. <br /><br />This is all just my opinion of course, but what the jury's verdict tells me is that they followed the law of the 'system' in making their decision....a 'system' that greatly limits a jury's ability to 'think for themselves'.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
What do you mean - even if MJ pushed it himself, Murtay would still be guilty of involuntary manslaughter?!<br />What kind of justice is this smiley_spider?
<br />I posted a pdf file of the 'jury instructions' a few pages back but I'm not sure if people actually read them. Based on those instructions, I honestly cannot see how this jury could've found Murray 'not guilty' of involuntary manslaughter. I may be missing something entirely or maybe misinterpreting the instructions (specifically the definition(s) under the 'Charged Crime' section)....but based on THOSE instructions/definitions, IMO the jury came up with the 'right' verdict (ANY jury that would've followed THOSE instructions in this case, would've and should've found any DOCTOR 'guilty' of involuntary manslaughter...regardless of age, sex, nationality, etc).<br /><br />Some are getting 'caught up' on the 'fatal dose' issue...but again, the instructions are VERY clear in that even IF MJ administered the 'fatal dose' himself, or some other person came in and injected MJ with it, Murray CAN still be guilty IF he should have been able to 'foresee' the possibility of this happening. Based on Murray's own statement(s), he said he knew Mike 'liked to push it', he also knew there were others in the house, and he also knew that the room was littered with drugs. So the 'fatal dose' factor is a non-issue with a charge of involuntary manslaughter....IF he was being charged with murder, then the 'reasonable doubt' as to who administered the fatal dose would've and should've come into play....but he was not charged with that crime. Again, the instructions are VERY clear on this issue.<br /><br />Like others, I tend to think that the DA is in on it (even if just Walgren) based on the 'odd' things that were said and done in court. But this 'script' was SO rock-solid for a guilty verdict (with the added bonus of a seemingly incompetant defense team)...that it probably wouldn't even have been necessary to have the DA in on it in order to ensure a guilty verdict. Based on what was presented in court (i.e. the 17 deviations from the standard of care, which were in many instances extreme deviations) the ONLY way IMO that this jury could've found Murray 'not guilty' is if they either didn't understand the instructions OR they intentionally went against them.<br /><br />Which takes us to the part in the instructions where the judge makes it VERY clear to the jury what they are 'allowed' to consider in their deliberations and what they're not...and the ONLY things they are to consider is ONLY what has been presented in court. It's 'easy' for us to notice discrepancies, inconsistencies, and/or outright 'fake' evidence...but we SEE everything through 'hoax-eyes'. It's hard to unring a bell once it's been rung...we have been awakened to all of the BS. Given the fact that 99% of the world thinks Mike is dead...odds are that all, or at least most, of the jury did too. But even IF they noticed that something wasn't quite right (and again, this would be difficult or 99% of the world wouldn't think Mike is dead)...but even IF they decided, for example, that the autopsy photo didn't look 'quite right' or any other 'evidence' presented in court for that matter....under THE LAW they are NOT allowed to look further into it on their own. The instructions, again, are VERY clear on this and we've discussed this very fact in this thread. The jury would've had to intentionally violate the instructions (the law) in order to research the 'oddities'....and IF they came back with a not guilty verdict based on their OWN research, the case is an automatic mistrial. It's a catch-22...in order to find the truth, they would've had to break the law....in breaking the law, the 'system' deems their 'truth' irrelevant.<br /><br />And THAT, in itself, should shed light on one of the major flaws in the judicial system where juries are involved. <br /><br />This is all just my opinion of course, but what the jury's verdict tells me is that they followed the law of the 'system' in making their decision....a 'system' that greatly limits a jury's ability to 'think for themselves'.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.<br />
<br /><br />I must have completely missed that post BTC...thank you for posting it....I am off to work at the moment, but will read them asap today. From what little I know about how juries work, I can totally see your points......I had posted that LA Fire Dept handbook/log about how to fill out that paramedic report.....it too was full of contradictions and errors technically. LOVE U....miss chatting....will talk to you later today for sure <br /><br />Blessings....gotta run...
@Gina...this was not a murder trial, therefore, under the law/definition of involuntary manslaughter, the 'fatal dose' and who administered it is irrelevant when ALL of Murray's other actions and/or failures are taken into consideration.<br /><br />Here is the relevant part in the instructions referencing this...and prior to this part in the instructions, the judge instructed the jury that THE LAW states that Murray, as MJ's doctor, had a legal duty to his patient (this is a recognized and undisputable 'fact' under the law).<br /><br />
<br />There may be more than one cause of death. An act or a failure to perform a legal duty causes the death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not have to be the only factor that causes the death.<br /><br />To relieve a defendant of criminal liability, an intervening cause must be an unforeseeable and extraordinary occurence. A defendant remains criminally liable for the death if either the possible consequence might reasonably have been contemplated or the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of harm of the kind that could result from his or her act.<br /><br />The failure of the alleged victim Michael Joseph Jackson or another person to use reasonable care may have contributed to the death. However, if the defendant's act or the defendant's failure to perform a legal duty was a substantial factor causing the death, then the defendant is legally responsible for the death even though Michael Joseph Jackson or another person may have failed to use reasonable care.<br /><br />If you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant's act or failure to perform a legal duty caused the death, you must find him not guilty.<br />
<br /><br />Here's the link to the jury instructions for anyone interested:<br />http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/jury-instructions.pdf<br /><br />@WishingStar...I miss our chatting too!!! I had put a lot of things 'on hold' in order to watch as much of the trial as I could....and now I'm backtracking to deal with them all lol, so I too have been busy. Hope to catch up soon bearhug Love you!<br /><br />@WhiteNight...I just read your post and gotta say I loved it! Thanks for sharing.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
BeTheChange, great post about the jury instructions regarding involuntary manslaughter - just what I've been trying to say, but you put it so well. Thanks!
<br />Since the verdict I have become increasingly frustrated. We, have hid in our corner, and for the most part only told each other what we KNOW. We watched an innocent man get convicted of a crime he did not commit and done nothing. I don't know if it was a real trial or a kangaroo court. It sure as hell was presented to us as real wasn't it? I have enjoyed the hoax as much as anyone and will continue to do so but how long are we going to remain silent about what we know? We are already considered nuts but some and are mostly dismissed by others so what do we have to lose by demanding truth as one collective voice? Maybe, just maybe Michael wants us to do it. Maybe he told us once in a song...."I can't do it by myself." -Cry <br />Our numbers are massive. We are everywhere. Every corner of the earth has a believer. If we are to truly be Michael's Army of Love than we need to start acting like it by DEMANDING TRUTH. We are the soldiers in TII's TDRCAU.<br />I have tons more to say on the subject but will leavewith this for now. LOVE to all of you!!!! <br /><br /> /bravo/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<br /><br />That's an interesting way to look at the current situation, Monster. If MJDHI were to write a collective letter to, I don't know who, the judge maybe, stating why we think the verdict was the wrong one, would that be action, interaction or interferance?<br /><br />I tend to think there is no need, because believing in the hoax, I think MJ is in control and that the verdict is as he wants it - if not and he wants our help, he only has to ask - I'm pretty sure there are several here that he's in contact with!
<br />BeTheChange, great post about the jury instructions regarding involuntary manslaughter - just what I've been trying to say, but you put it so well. Thanks!<br />
<br /><br />Yup...it's all in the instructions. And IF there was any 'doubts' among the jury prior to deliberations, those instructions pretty much 'sealed the deal' for them. We are now hearing from jurors, which is not unusual (I was actually thinking they would've been given the option to speak right after the verdict in a 'press room' as I've seen done with other trials)....and at least one of them is saying that it was a quick, unanimous decision (no surprise there). I'm sure they were ready to render their verdict on the 4th....but since they didn't there's two possible options: 1) they are 'in on it' and therefore waited until the 7th so that it would 'fit' better with the numerology, or 2) they are not 'in on it' and were somehow made to postpone the verdict until the 7th (i.e. they could have been asked/told by the court to wait until Monday for whatever reason...and if so, they really wouldn't have had much choice). Either option, though, clearly points to a purposeful reading of the verdict on the 7th, which supports the 'hoax'. This is not only in regards to the date...but to the time of the verdict as well.<br /><br />With L.O.V.E. always.
<br />Bec, Walgren's obvious KEY phrases and 'misspellings' can't be by accident, unless someone else prepared all of the documents and told him what to say, which in turn would mean he is completely featherbrained and unaware of any hoax. That I obviously doubt lol, he can't be that dumb. I also noticed you changed your stance on a/or--ANY-- sting? <br />
<br /><br />No, I've said for a year now I don't believe there is an FBI sting going on... the only set up for a sting I see is a sting against the media, the general public, and MJ's own fans. The Fan sting I started talking about when the Michael album came out with it's "fake" lyrics.
You must unlearn what you have learned! /overreacting/ OK this is only my opinion on why this might have been posted. Maybe it is preparation for what is coming our way. Maybe everything we have learned is not the truth. Maybe everything we learned since the pepsi incident is not what we think it is. Michael changed so much after that supposed accident. This is only a opinion but what if he did have someone take over for him because he felt that someone was out to get him.Everything we learned has been from the media, as None of us sadly really don't know him personally. every thing we all know is all media connected. even though we know the media lies,all we really know about him is through them. So why cant every story we know about the man be a total fabrication him being a drug addict/lisa mary presley/elephant man bones/Hyperbaric Chamber/the list goes on and on. We all maybe have to learn that we really know nothing and the truth will truly shock us because we will find out we have been fooled since the very beginning of this roller coaster ride. It would not be a surprise to me if the wrong person got killed that day and the real Michael holds all the cards right now. Everything we may have learned maybe will show us that these media stories we see on television are nothing but Hollywood productions in themselves and Michael caught them and us Hook,Line and Sinker.
Comments